Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
 | Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate:
|
| V | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 52 | 9 | 61 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 5 | 12 | 17 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| FfD | 0 | 4 | 31 | 3 | 38 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 6 | 10 | 16 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article or disambiguation page should be deleted or merged. Articles listed are normally discussed for at least seven days, after which the deletion or merging processes may proceed based on community consensus; if consensus is clear prior to the seven day threshold, an AfD may be closed early. Common outcomes are that the article is kept, deleted, merged, redirected, incubated, moved to another title, or userfied to a user subpage.
This page explains what you should consider before nominating, the steps for nominating, and how to discuss an AfD. It also links to the lists of current debates, and two companion processes to AfD: speedy deletion, based on clearly defined criteria such as vandalism and patent nonsense, and proposed deletion, used to suggest uncontroversial deletions. For uncontroversial article merges, please be bold and perform the merge.
If you want to nominate an article for deletion or merging, first review the deletion policy which describes the criteria for deletion and the common reasons to merge articles. The guide to deletion explains the deletion process. If an article meets the criteria for deletion or merging, consult the instructions below. If you are unsure whether a page should be nominated at AfD or need more help, ask on this talk page or Wikipedia's help desk.
Current and past articles for deletion (AfD) discussions
Current discussions
Articles being considered for possible deletion are indexed by the day on which they were first listed.
Alternatively, if you believe that deletion of an article would be uncontroversial, you may place the code {{subst:prod|insert reason for deletion}} on the article instead. See also Wikipedia:Proposed deletion for more information, and Category:Proposed deletions, for other currently pending nominations for deletion.
- 9 April (Thursday)
- 8 April (Wednesday)
- 7 April (Tuesday)
- 6 April (Monday)
- 5 April (Sunday)
- 4 April (Saturday)
- 3 April (Friday)
- 2 April (Thursday)
- April 01 (Wednesday) (0 open / 48 closed / 48 total discussions)
- March 31 (Tuesday) (0 open / 44 closed / 44 total discussions)
- March 30 (Monday) (0 open / 67 closed / 67 total discussions)
- March 29 (Sunday) (0 open / 63 closed / 63 total discussions)
- March 28 (Saturday) (0 open / 62 closed / 62 total discussions)
AfDs sorted by topic and country
Search AfD discussions
- To find discussions containing the word navy, enter
navy - To find discussions about articles whose titles contain battleships, enter
intitle:battleships - To find discussions with navy anywhere, but battleships only in the article title, enter
navy intitle:battleships - Browse current discussions in a sortable table
- Or browse archived discussions grouped chronologically
Step 1. Checks and alternatives before nominating
Prior to nominating article(s) for deletion, please be sure to:
- Read and understand these policies and guidelines:
- The Wikipedia deletion policy, which explains valid grounds for deletion, alternatives to deletion, the various deletion processes, and the list of good reasons to merge articles
- The main four guidelines and policies that inform AfD discussions: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)
- Subject-specific notability guidelines, which can be found at Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines, with further related essays at Category:Wikipedia notability. Common outcomes may be checked to see if other articles on a specific topic tend to be kept, deleted, or merged as a result of an AfD discussion
- Carry out these checks:
- Confirm that the article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, proposed deletion, bold merging, or speedy keep
- Read the article's talk page for previous nominations and, if proposing deletion rather than merging, make sure enough time has passed since the previous deletion discussion
- Review the article's history to check for potential recent vandalism or poor editing
- In the Tools sidebar, check "What links here" to see how the page is used and referenced within Wikipedia, and any interlanguage links which may lead to more developed and better-sourced articles.
- Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted or merged:
- If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it can only be proposed for merging as it is not a candidate for deletion
- If the article was recently created, consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article
- If an article has issues, try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, or adding a cleanup tag, such as
{{notability}},{{hoax}},{{original research}}, or{{advert}} - If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider proposing it for merging or redirecting rather than deletion If a bold merger or redirection is not uncontroversial, AfD is an appropriate venue for discussing it in addition to the article's talk
-
Diligence
- If proposing deletion rather than merging, the minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, and a Google News search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. Also search for native-language sources if the subject has a name in a non-Latin alphabet (such as Japanese or Greek), which is often in the lead
- If possible, also make use of The Wikipedia Library, which offers free access to various subscription databases of additional resources. Not every resource will always be relevant, so it is not necessary to check it extensively, but it may be useful for specialized or older topics that might not Google well
- If you find a lack of sources outside the article, you have completed basic due diligence for deletion nominations. Even if a quick search does find sources, but you determine that they are insufficient (e.g., because they only contain passing mention of the topic), then a deletion nomination may still be appropriate.
- If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a deletion nomination. Instead, you should consider proposing it for merging, citing the sources, or apply an appropriate template, such as {{unreferenced}}, {{refimprove}}, {{third-party}}, {{primary sources}}, and {{one source}} (for a more complete list see Wikipedia:Template index/Sources of articles.
Step 2. Nominate the article
You are not logged in, so you are not autoconfirmed. Unless you log in, you cannot nominate an article on your own.Your account is autoconfirmed. This means you can use Twinkle to nominate articles more easily!is not autoconfirmed. You can nominate articles, but you cannot use Twinkle to do it easily.
This section describes how to list articles and their associated talk pages for deletion or merging. For pages that are not articles, list them at other appropriate discussion venues. Only registered users can complete the process, so if you don't want to log in or create an account, post a message at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion requesting that someone else perform the nomination, making sure to explain your rationale there.
If wish to nominate two or more related articles at once, nominate the first article using of the methods below and then nominate the additional articles later.
You will need to write a nomination statement, explaining why you hink the article should be deleted or merged. If a nomination does not recommend any course of action, such as Merge or Redirect, it is implied that the nominator recommends deletion. If you have already attempted to locate additional reliable sources, describe how you searched and what you found. If you did not, then say that, too. If your main reason for deletion is one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (e.g., "it's not important") or could be fixed by editing (e.g., "it's promotional"), then consider nominating it for merging instead. Specifically for deletion nominations, the statement is usually less than 150 words long, though there is no required minimum or maximum.
Methods
Twinkle
Several actions on the English Wikipedia are restricted to user accounts that are at least 4 days old and have made at least 10 edits. Users who meet these requirements are automatically autoconfirmed. If the box on the right says you are autoconfirmed, it is recommended that you use the Twinkle tool if you want to nominate one or more articles for deletion or merging. To install and use it, follow these steps:
- Open your Gadgets preferences, enable "Twinkle", and click "Save"
- Go back to the article, click "TW" in the top right, and choose "XFD"
- Fill in the form and click Submit
Guided template
This template can be used by autoconfirmed users to manually go through the process of nominating an article for deletion or merging, without having to install Twinkle. However, note that the § Twinkle method remains the fastest and most user-friendly way to nominate articles at AfD. If you do it this way, remember to add {{subst:AFD|Name of the article}} at the top of the article, as well as list the nomination at the top of today's AfD log page.
Manual method
If you are autoconfirmed, you should use the § Twinkle method to make nominations at AfD. However, you can use the manual method in case you're registered but not yet autoconfirmed. Note that using Twinkle is still recommended in most cases
You must sign in to nominate pages for deletion. If you do not sign in, or you edit anonymously, you will get stuck part way through the nomination procedure.
- To nominate multiple related articles for deletion or merging, follow the bundled nomination procedure.
- To nominate a single article for deletion or merging, it is highly recommended that you use the simple Twinkle tool. If you want to do it manually instead, follow the manual process:
I – Put the AfD tags on the article(s).
|
II – Create the article's AfD discussion page.
The resulting AfD box at the top of the article should contain a bolded link to a "Preloaded debate": click it and follow the instructions that will appear above the text editor. You can do it manually as well:
|
III – Notify users who monitor AfD.
|
Nominate additional related articles
If nominating similar articles, it is best to make this a group nomination so that they can be considered collectively. This avoids excessive repetition which would otherwise tend to overload involved editors. However, group nominations that are too large or too loosely related may be split up or speedy-closed. To make it easier for those participating in the discussion, it may be helpful to bundle all nominations together into a single nomination. However, if you're proposing deletion rather than merging, it is a good idea to first list one article at AfD and see how it goes, before nominating an entire group.
Examples of articles which may be bundled into a single nomination:
- A group of articles with identical content but with slightly different titles.
- A group of hoax or spam articles by the same editor.
- A series of articles on nearly identical manufactured products.
If an article in the group has a fair or better chance of standing on its own merits, it should not be bundled—nominate it separately. A group of articles should only be nominated for deletion for clear-cut discussions based on existing policy. If you're unsure, don't bundle deletion nominations.
For the sake of clarity, nominations should only be bundled near the start of the process, ideally before any substantive discussion, but may be acceptable following a couple other editors' comments, particularly (but not only) where those comments are "per nom", by single purpose accounts, the article creator, or were clearly in bad faith.
To bundle articles for deletion or merging:
| I. II. III. |
Nominate the first article.
Follow steps I to III above. |
| IV. | Nominate the additional articles To nominate the additional articles, insert the following at the top of each remaining article:
Replace NominationName with the page name of the first page to be deleted, not the current page name. In other words, if Some article was the first article you nominated, replace PageName with Some article (or Some article (nth nomination) if this is not the first nomination of Some article). As before, please include the phrase "AfD: Nominated for deletion/merging; see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NominationName]]" in the edit summary (again replacing NominationName with the first page name to be deleted), and do not mark the edit as minor. Publish the page. Repeat for all articles to be bundled. (If the article has been nominated before, use |
| V. | Add the additional articles to the nomination.
Go to the first article's AfD discussion page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName, and add a note I am also nominating the following related pages because [insert reason here]:
:{{la|related article 1}}
:{{la|related article 2}}
In the edit summary, note that you are bundling related articles for deletion or merging. |
Step 3. Notify interested parties
While listing an article at AfD is sufficient, nominators and others sometimes want to attract more attention from and participation by informed editors. All such efforts must comply with Wikipedia's guideline against biased canvassing.
To encourage participation by less experienced editors, please avoid Wikipedia-specific abbreviations in the messages you leave about the discussion, link to any relevant policies or guidelines, such as notability, verifiability, or a specific section of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, e.g., Wikipedia is not a directory, and please provide a link to the AfD discussion page itself.
- Deletion sorting
- Once listed, deletion and merging discussions can, optionally, also be transcluded into an appropriate AfD sorting list, such as the ones for actors, music, academics, or specific countries. Since many people watch these sorting pages for subject areas that particularly interest them, including your recent AfD listing on one of these pages helps attract people familiar with a particular topic area. Please see the complete list of lists.
- wikiProjects
- WikiProjects are groups of editors that are interested in a particular subject or type of editing. If the article is within the scope of one or more WikiProjects, they may welcome a brief, neutral note on their project's talk page(s) about the AfD.
- Tagging the nominated article's talk page with a relevant WikiProject's banner will result in the article being listed in that project's Article Alerts automatically if they subscribe to the system. For instance, tagging an article with {{WikiProject Physics}} will list the discussion in Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Article alerts.
- substantial
- While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion or merging. One should not notify bot accounts, editors who have only made insignificant edits, or editors who have never edited the article. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the article, use the Page History tool, or use Wikipedia Page History Statistics. Use:
{{subst:Afd notice|article name|AfD discussion title}} ~~~~
At this point, you've done all you need to do as nominator. Sometime after seven days have passed, someone will either close the discussion or, where needed,relist it for another seven days of discussion. (The "someone" must not be you, the nominator. However, if you want to see how it's done, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion § How an AfD discussion is closed.)
Step 4. Discuss
Discussion occurs on a dedicated discussion page, a sub-page of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion named after the article. Unlike speedy deletion, AfD involves multiple editors to reduce the possibility of an erroneous conclusion being reached by placing "multiple layers of swiss cheese" in the process. While AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself.
When editors recommend a course of action, they usually do so in bold text, e.g., "Keep", "Delete", "Merge", "Redirect", or other view. A number of tools which parse AfDs will only recognize bolded words.[1]
- Delete means simply that the user thinks the article should be deleted. They may state reasons or simply leave it at this statement. Because the deletion process is a discussion and not a vote, simply stating "delete" without any further comment is discouraged.
- Merge is a recommendation to keep some or most of the article's content but to move it into some more appropriate article. It is either inappropriate or insufficient for a stand-alone article. After the merger, the article will be replaced with a redirect to the target article (in order to preserve the attribution history).
- Keep means simply that the user thinks the article should not be deleted. They may state reasons or simply leave it at this statement. Because the deletion process is a discussion and not a vote, simply stating "keep" without any further comment is discouraged.
- Redirect is a recommendation to keep the article's history but to blank the content and replace it with a redirect. Users who want to see the article's history destroyed should explicitly recommend Delete then Redirect.
- Userfy/Draftify is a recommendation to move the article to either a subpage of the author's user page or the Draft namespace. Wikipedia allows greater leniency in the userspace than the main article space. The resultant redirect is always deleted.
Contributing
Have a look at the article before making a recommendation. Do not base your recommendation solely on the information supplied by the nominator or other editors. The best way to help AfD to continue to work is always to check things out for yourself before presenting a rationale. For example, if the assertion is that the subject is unverifiable, have a look yourself to see whether you can find sources that other editors may have missed.
Anyone acting in good faith can contribute to the discussion, including the main authors of the article. Closers will discount any obviously bad faith contributions to the discussion when closing the discussion; on the other hand, a user who makes a well-argued, fact-based case based upon Wikipedia policy and does so in a civil manner may well sway the discussion despite being anonymous. When making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets or violates the policy.
Always explain your reasoning. This allows others to challenge or support facts, suggest compromises or identify alternative courses of action that might not yet have been considered. It also allows closers to determine at the end of the discussion, whether your concerns have been addressed and whether your comments still apply if the article was significantly rewritten during the discussion period. "Votes" without rationales may be discounted at the discretion of the closing admin.
You should consider alternatives to deletion or merging. For example, if you think the article should be a disambiguation page or a redirect to another article, specifically recommend "Disambiguation" or "Redirect". Do not recommend deletion in such cases. Arguments commonly used to recommend deletion are: "unverifiable" (violates both WP:V and WP:NEXIST, i.e., not just currently uncited), "original research", and "non-notable" in cases where the subject does not meet their respective notability criteria.
Behavior
Familiarise yourself with the policy of civility and the guidelines Wikietiquette and "do not bite the newbies". AfDs are public, and are sometimes quoted in the popular press.[2][3] Keep to public-facing levels of civility, just as you should for any edit you make to Wikipedia, and avoid personal attacks, the use of sarcastic language.
Experienced AfD participants re-visit discussions that they have already participated in. They are looking for new facts, evidence or changes to the article which might change their initial conclusion. In this situation, strike through your previous comment using <s>...</s> (if you are changing your mind) or to explicitly comment "no change" to confirm that you have considered the new evidence but remain unconvinced.
Please remember that AfD is a busy and repetitive place. The people who volunteer to work the AfD process may seem terse, gruff and abrupt. They are not (usually) being intentionally rude. We value civility and always try to assume good faith. However, often over a hundred articles are nominated for deletion each day. Experienced Wikipedians have been through thousands of deletion discussions and have read and thought through many of the same arguments many times before. For speed, some employ shorthands (described in the § Shorthands section below) rather than typing out the same reasoning and arguments again and again. They are trying to be efficient, not rude.
Accusations of vanity and other motives should be avoided as they are not in themselves reasons for deletion or merging. The argument "non-neutral point of view" is often used, but often such articles can be salvaged, so this is not a very strong reason for deletion or merging either.
Disclose whether you have a vested interest in the article, per Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide § Advice. Deletion discussions follow the normal Wikipedia talk page etiquette. Please be familiar with the policies of not biting the newcomers, Wikiquette, no personal attacks, biographies of living persons and civility before contributing.
Formatting
For consistency, the form for the discussion is a bulleted list below the nomination text. You may indent the discussion by using multiple bullets. Mixing of bullets and other forms of indentation is discouraged because it makes the discussion much harder for subsequent readers to follow.
Please do not refactor the discussion into lists or tables of recommendations, however much you may think that this helps the process. Both the context and the order of the comments are essential to understanding the intents of contributors, both at the discussion closure and during the discussion. Refactoring actually makes the job of determining consensus at the time of closure much harder, not easier.
You should not attempt to structure or refactor an AfD discussion by adding tally boxes or reordering or grouping comments by their !votes. Do not message editors about AfD nominations because they support your view on the topic; this can be seen as votestacking. However, if you are nominating an article for deletion or merging, you can send a friendly notice to those who contributed significantly to it and therefore might disagree with you.
Do not remove or modify other people's comments even if you believe them to be in bad faith, unless the user has been banned from editing the relevant pages, or is making a blatantly offensive personal attack or a defamatory comment about a living person.[4][5] Unsourced negative comments about living people may be removed by any editor.
Start comments or recommendations on a new bulleted line. If you are responding to another editor, put your comment directly below theirs, making sure it is indented accordingly. Editors may leave multiple recommendations as alternatives when unsure, for instance "Merge or redirect". Do not make conflicting recommendations; if you change your mind, strike your original bolded !vote by enclosing a retracted statement between <del> and </del>, such as "Delete Keep".
Editing the article during the discussion
Editors are welcome to continue editing the article during the discussion period, for example to address the points raised during the discussion. If your edits are significant, you can add a note in the discussion. There are, however, a few restrictions upon how you may edit an article. You must not blank the article (unless it is a copyright infringement), remove the AfD banner, or turn the article into a redirect. While there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD or deletion review discussion is in progress, editors considering doing so should realize such a move can confuse the discussion greatly, preempt a closing decision, make the discussion difficult to track, and lead to inconsistencies when using semi-automated closing scripts. If you move the article, note it on the deletion discussion page in a new comment.
Participants in deletion discussions should not circumvent consensus by merging or copying material to another page unilaterally before the debate closes. Such action may cause contention, extra process steps, and additional administrative work if undoing any copying is necessary. If you wish to merge or copy material, it is preferable to offer a specific proposal in the deletion discussion, negotiate with the other participants, and wait for the discussion to be closed. Even if the article is ultimately deleted, you can ask the closing administrator for a copy of the material to reuse, and the administrator can also advise you on any further steps that you may need to perform in order to reuse the content.
If you believe the article topic is valid and encyclopedic, and it lacks only references and other minor changes to survive, you may request help in the task by listing the article on the rescue list in accordance with instructions given at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list, and then adding the {{rescue list}} template to the AfD discussion by posting {{subst:rescue list}} to the discussion thread. If the reasons given in the AfD nomination are later addressed by editing, the nomination can be withdrawn by the nominator.
Sockpuppetry is not tolerated
Use of multiple accounts to reinforce your opinions is forbidden. Multiple recommendations by users shown to be using "sock puppets" (multiple accounts belonging to the same person) will be discounted and the user manipulating consensus with multiple accounts will likely be blocked indefinitely.
A sockpuppet is an account created by a vandal or bad-faith contributor in an attempt to bias the deletion process. A close variation is the "meatpuppet", people recruited from outside Wikipedia to try to alter the result of a discussion (for example, if your article about a web forum is up for deletion and you post a call for other forum members to "help keep our website in Wikipedia"). Because these tactics are common, comments by new users in deletion discussions may sometimes be viewed with suspicion. These users are difficult to distinguish from legitimate new users who are interested in improving the project. If someone notes that you are a new user, please take it in the spirit it was intended—a fact to be weighed by the closing admin, not an attack on the person.
Consensus is ultimately determined at the discretion of the closing admin after considering the contribution history and pattern of comments. Civil comments and logical arguments are often given the benefit of the doubt while hostile comments are presumed to be bad-faith. Verifiable facts and evidence are welcome from anybody and will be considered when the discussion is closed.
Step 5. Closure
A deletion or merging discussion is normally allowed to run for seven full days (168 hours), but may be closed sooner if any of certain special conditions applies. Depending on the backlog, a discussion may remain open for several more days, during which it is still acceptable to add comments to the discussion. A volunteer (the "closer") will review the article, carefully read the discussion, weigh all the facts, evidence and arguments presented and determine if consensus was reached on the fate of the article.
An admin who is uninvolved and has not participated in the AfD discussion will assess the discussion for consensus. An uninvolved editor in good standing who is not an administrator may close AfDs in certain circumstances. In accordance to the deletion process, non-admin closers should indicate their non-admin status with the {{nacd}} ("non-admin closure") template in the comment for the closure. Closers are expected and exercise their judgment in order to make sure that the decision reached by the community complies with the spirit of all Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Especially in controversial cases, the closer will transparently explain how they determined consensus.
The desired standard is rough consensus, not unanimity. Discussions which fail to reach rough consensus, so that the community could not decide either for or against a particular action, are closed as "no consensus"; this means that no particular action is taken, defaulting to the article being kept. Alternatively, the discussion may be relisted for further discussion. These recommendations represent the community consensus and also should not be overturned lightly. The discussion is preserved for future reference in accordance with the deletion process, both for consultation as non-binding precedent and for determining when a previously deleted article has been re-created.
The XFDcloser script is useful for automating these processes.
Close the discussion
| AfD instructions | |
|---|---|
| close after | 7 days (relist if insufficient discussion) |
| top tag | {{subst:Afd top|'''RESULT'''}} ~~~~ |
| bottom tag | {{subst:Afd bottom}} |
| retire | remove categorization template |
| If deleting | |
| delete page incl. reason | [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Article]] |
| If keeping | |
| tag talk page | {{Old AfD multi |date= |result= |page= }} |
| remove | afd tag from article |
You can view the day page containing debates old enough to be closed. If it may take significant time to assess the debate or perform the closing edits, consider letting others know that you are assessing the discussion by adding {{Closing}} to the very top of the page.
After reading the discussion, determine, using the guidelines set forth at Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, the consensus. Closers are reminded to take care about forming a local consensus in discussions with a small number of regular participants, per this ArbCom ruling.
The procedure is the same for a result of keep, no consensus, or withdrawn by nominator. These reasons are listed in the judgement of conseusus, the templates, and the edit summaries. Follow those instructions, replacing "RESULT" with the actual result: "keep", "no consensus", or "speedy keep (withdrawn by nominator)":
- On the AfD discussion page:
- Remove the
{{Closing}}tag from the page, if it was placed beforehand. - Insert at the top of the page:
{{Afd top|'''result'''}}. Paste that entire template onto the article's talk page, above any WikiProject tags, and then save using an edit summary such as "Adding {{Old AfD multi}}". - If the
{{Old AfD multi}}is not present in the tag (most likely because this is not the first nomination), manually add your closure to the existing{{Old AfD multi}}tag. Please see {{Old AfD multi/doc}} for instructions on how to format it.
- Remove the
- Remove the AfD tag from the article itself; that is, everything between (and including)
. Save using an edit summary such as "Removing AfD tag. Consensus was "..."." - If the consensus was to keep and clean up, consider adding the
{{Cleanup AfD}}tag on top of the article.
After closing, the AfD page should look like this:
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was RESULT [Additional comments]. Example (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
- DISCUSSION THREAD
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisting
If insufficient discussion took place to determine a consensus or lack thereof, the AfD can be relisted by doing the following:
- At the very bottom of the deletion discussion, add
{{subst:relist}}If additional comments need to be made upon relisting, add{{subst:relist|Comments about the relist}}instead. - Go to the day the AfD was listed; this can be found by clicking What links here on the AfD page and then clicking the AfD log page (e.g. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/<date>]]). On that AfD log page, comment out (using
<!-- ... -->) the transclusion of the relisted deletion discussion. It should look like this:<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Article}} -->
- Save that AfD log page with an edit summary such as "[[WP:RELIST|Relisting]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Article]]".
- Go to WP:AFD/T and click on the link, Today, which leads to today's AfD log page (e.g. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/<today's date>]]) Add to the top of the list of AfDs the relisted AfD, adding
<!--Relisted-->at the end. It should look like this:{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Article}}<!--Relisted-->
- Save the today's log page with an edit summary such as "[[WP:RELIST|Relisting]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Article]]".
Withdrawing
If you change your mind about the nomination, you can withdraw it. Withdrawing a nomination can save other editors' time by cutting short the discussion. This might be because the discussion has produced new information about the topic, or because you realise the nomination was a mistake. To withdraw a nomination, add a note saying "Withdrawn by nominator" immediately below your nomination statement at the top of the discussion, give a brief explanation, and sign it.
The nominator can withdraw the nomination and close a discussion as speedy keep reason #1, if all other viewpoints expressed were for keep and doing so does not short-circuit an ongoing discussion.
Contesting the closure
Questions or concerns about a closure should first be asked on the talk page of the editor who closed the discussion. If that does not resolve the concerns, the closure can be appealed at Wikipedia:Deletion review. The consensus of the community about an article's disposition is generally respected, and should not be overturned or disregarded lightly. If you disagree with the consensus, it is a good idea to first try to understand why the community made its decision. You may find that its reasoning was sensible. However, if you remain unsatisfied with the community's decision, there are a few options open to you.
If you think that an article was wrongly kept after the AfD, you could wait to see if the article is improved to overcome your objections; if it isn't, you can renominate it for deletion. If and when you do renominate, be careful to say why you think the reasons proffered for keeping the article are poor, and why you think the article must be deleted.
If you think that an article was wrongly deleted, you can recreate the article. If you do decide to recreate it, pay careful attention to the reasons that were proffered for deletion. Overcome the objections, and show that your new, improved work meets Wikipedia article policies. It can help to write down the reasons you think the article belongs on Wikipedia on the article's discussion page. If you manage to improve on the earlier version of the article and overcome its (perceived) shortcomings, the new article cannot be speedily deleted, and any attempt to remove it again must be settled before the community, on AfD.
Finally, if you are unsatisfied with the outcome of an AfD because you believe that a procedural issue interfered with the AfD or with the implementation of its outcome, you can challenge the closure at Wikipedia:Deletion review, where deletions are reviewed by the community over a period of seven days. The consensus reached at this forum has the authority to overturn AfD closures. Note, however, that by long tradition and consensus, Deletion review only addresses procedural problems that may have hampered an AfD. For example, if the participants of an AfD arrived at one decision but the closing administrator wrongly executed another, a consensus at Deletion review can overturn the administrator's action. It must be emphasized that the review exists does not exist to override community consensus. If the outcome of the AfD was arrived at fairly and applied adequately, it is unlikely that the closure will be overturned after a review.
Step 6. Carry out the closure
Depending on the decision, proceed as follows:
Delete
- Check the article's talk page for any notice that this page's contents had been copied to another page (e.g. {{copied}}). The page history may need to be retained for proper attribution of the copied text to satisfy Wikipedia's licensing.
- Delete the article, adding a link to the deletion discussion
[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Article]]to the "Other/additional reason:" box. For most administrators using the current deletion interface, the box will automatically contain that. - Delete the article's talk page per speedy deletion criterion G8, placing the following in the "Other/additional reason:" box:
[[WP:CSD#G8|G8]]: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent pageFor most administrators using the current deletion interface, this can be selected in the drop-down box under "Reason:". - Go to Special:WhatLinksHere on the deleted article and delete any redirects that point to the deleted article, using speedy deletion criterion G8. Also, if the AfD has shown no current scope to have an article on the subject, edit articles to remove redlinks to the deleted page; use your discretion over whether to delete the text altogether, e.g. from lists. Likewise, remove links found on category and portal pages; links on user and talk pages can be ignored, as can some WikiProject pages.
Merge
- Follow the procedures outlined in step 5 for closing the discussion and adding the
{{Old AfD multi}}tag to the article's talk page. - Make sure you specify on the AfD page where the article should be merged to.
- On the nominated article, replace the AfD tag with the following:
{{Afd-merge to|Destination article|discuss=Debate name|{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}}}
- On the destination article, add the following at the top, but below any hatnotes:
{{Merging from|Nominated article|afd=Debate name|date={{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}}}
- On the destination article's talk page, add the following (normally above the WikiProject tags):
{{Afd-merge from|Nominated article|page=Debate name|date={{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}}}
- To avoid needlessly increasing the merge backlog, consider carrying out the merge yourself by following the merging instructions.
Redirect
- Follow the procedures outlined in step 5 for closing the discussion and adding the
{{Old AfD multi}}tag to the article's talk page. - Make sure you specify on the AfD page where the article should be redirected to.
- Redirect the article to the target as consensus prescribes. To do this more quickly, you can install and use one of the scripts listed at Wikipedia:User scripts/List § Redirects.
See also
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday
- Please do not try to update these pages or start a new one yourself. These pages are not the deletion log pages referred to in step III of the instructions, above.
- Category:Proposed deletion (Note that this is under the separate Wikipedia process Wikipedia:Proposed deletion rather than Articles for Deletion.)
- Category:Articles for deletion templates
- An editor can use {{Db-u1}} to make a user request for starting the process of deleting certain pages from their userspace.
- Sortable table of open AfDs
- Topic-wise sorted list of open AfDs with nominations statements
- Oracle for Deletion for AfD statistics
- Wikipedia:List of online newspaper archives for sources useful for AFD discussions and WP:BEFORE searches
- Undeletion policy
- Deletion guidelines for admins
- Alternative outlets
- Common outcomes of AfD
- Archived deletion discussions
- Policy consensus discussions
- Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
- Deletion review
- Non-admin closure
- Proposed mergers
- Advice on closing discussions (essay)
- Help:My article got nominated for deletion!
- Category:Pages for discussion
- Wikipedia:Centralized discussion for a number of discussions on groups of articles
- Wikipedia:Google test for a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of Google hit-counts as supporting evidence
- Alternative outlets to recreate deleted articles
- Closing discussions
- Deletion common outcomes
- Deletion guidelines for administrators
- Deletion review guide
- Introduction to deletion process
- How to list pages for deletion
- Wikipedia:Oversight describes the policy of removal of personal information
- Wikipedia:Requests for oversight to request the use of oversight
- How to delete a page
- Wikipedia:Editing policy § Try to fix problems
Notes
- ^ The tools AfD Statistics and Admin AfD Counter[dead link] cannot parse unbolded !votes or closures.
- ^ "The battle for Wikipedia's soul". The Economist. March 6, 2008. Archived from the original on March 10, 2008.
- ^ Seth Finkelstein,"I'm on Wikipedia, get me out of here", The Guardian, September 28, 2006.
"At Wikipedia, contentious decisions are made by a process of elaborate discussion culminating in administrative fiat. Deletions go through a comment period. The process is not a vote, but the result forms a recommendation to the administrators." - ^ "User talk:Pagana: Difference between revisions". English Wikipedia. 9 September 2006. Retrieved 12 June 2013.
- ^ Wales, Jimmy (17 January 2006). "AFD courtesy problem". English Wikipedia, Nabble Forums. Archived from the original on 17 February 2007. Retrieved 12 June 2013.